Theories of social change can be divided into two groups: (1) Theories relating to the direction of social change
Download 71.5 Kb.
|
| Assumptions:
That change is inevitable and natural. That change is gradual and continuous. That change is sequential and in certain stages. That all successive stages of change are higher over preceding stage, i.e., evolution is progressive. That stages of change are non-reversible. That forces of change are inherent in the object. That the direction of change is from simple to complex, from homogeneity to heterogeneity, from undifferentiated to the differentiated in form and function. That all societies pass through same stages of development. All thinking of early sociologists was dominated by a conception of man and society as seen progressing up definite steps of evolution leading through every greater complexity to some final stage of perfection. The notion of evolutionary principles was extremely popular with British anthropologists and sociologists of nineteenth century. Such as Morgan (1877), Tyler (1889), Spencer (1890) and Hobhouse (1906). Although evolutionary theory in sociology is attributed to Herbert Spencer, it is clear that it was taken for granted by writers as diverse as Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and V. Gordon Childe. The fact that it was used by both radical and conservative theorists is indicative of the profound cultural importance of evolutionism in the nineteenth century thought. The conception of evolution was applied not only to the development of societies but also to art, literature, music, philosophy, sciences, religion, economic and political life (state) and almost every other achievement of the mind of man. Both Spencer and Durkheim employed the concept of structural differentiation to indicate that as society develops more functions, it becomes structurally more complex. This perspective has been elaborated more recently by Talcott Parsons. The general evolutionary model of society is represented by a large number of specific theories. C.H. Saint-Simon, one of the earliest founders of sociology, along with Auguste Comte, for example, put an evolutionary idea of social development, as a sequential progression of organic societies representing increasing levels of advancement. His three stages were later elaborated in Comte’s evolutionary scheme. Comte linked developments in human knowledge, culture and society and delineated the following three great stages through which all societies must go—those of conquest, defense and industry. Societies passed through three stages—the primitive, the intermediary and the scientific, which corresponded to the forms of human knowledge (thought). He conceived these stages as progressing from the theological through the metaphysical to arrive ultimately at the perfection of positive reasoning. He argued all mankind inevitably passed through these stages as it developed, suggesting both unilinear direction and progress. Spencer also displayed a linear concept of evolutionary stages. He argued that the trend of human societies was from simple, undifferentiated wholes to complex and heterogeneous ones, where the parts of the whole become more specialised but remained integrated. William Graham Sumner (1934), who has been labelled as a ‘Social Darwinist’ also used the idea of evolution, as had Spencer, to block efforts at reform and social change, arguing that social evolution must follow its own course, dictated by nature. He said: “It is the greatest folly of which a man can be capable, to sit down with a slate and pencil to plan out a new social world.” The evolutionary approach to social development was also followed by radical thinkers, such as Marx and Engels, who were greatly influenced by the work of the anthropologist L.H. Morgan, who sought to prove that all societies went through fixed stages of development each succeeding the other, from savagery through barbarism to civilisation. Marx and Engels maintained that each stage of civilisation, such as feudalism, prepared the ground for the next. It contained within itself “the seeds of its own destruction”, and would inevitably be succeeded by that stage next ‘higher’ on the scale of evolution. On this basis they concluded that the next stage in social evolution after the stage of capitalism could be attained only
Durkheim’s view of the progressive division of labour in society and German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies’ view of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft types of society to some extent also represent the evolutionary perspective but their schemes of classifying societies are
He believed that there was a historical trend, or evolution, from a low to a high degree of specialization. Durkheim distinguished two main types of society on the basis of this division of labour—the first based on mechanical solidarity and the second on organic solidarity. Durkheim believed that this second type always evolved from and succeeded the first as the degree of specialization, the division of labour, increased. Tonnies’ gemeinschaft type of society corresponded quite well to Durkheim’s mechanical solidarity and the second gesellschaft to organic solidarity. Numerous other scholars put forth similar ideas. The scheme of the American anthropologist Robert Redfield, who elaborated on the contrast between ‘folk’ and ‘urban’ society, reiterates the same basic dichotomy of social types suggested by Durkheim and Tonnies. Modem theorist Talcott Parsons also viewed social change as a process of ‘social evolution’ from simple to more complex form of society. He regards changes in adaptation as a major driving force of social evolution. The history of human society from simple hunting and gathering band to the complex nation-state represents an increase in the ‘general adaptive capacity of society. Download 71.5 Kb. Share with your friends:
|